Center for Social Inclusionhttp://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org
Solutions that work for everyoneTue, 03 Mar 2015 19:43:01 +0000en-UShourly1CSI Welcomes Jenny Levison to the Teamhttp://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/csi-welcomes-jenny-levison-team/
http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/csi-welcomes-jenny-levison-team/#commentsTue, 03 Mar 2015 11:00:56 +0000http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/?p=5367We are excited to announce Jenny Levison as Vice President of Marketing & Development at CSI. Jenny brings over 20 years of experience working at the nexus of the arts, media, justice, and equity to CSI.

]]>We are excited to announce Jenny Levison as Vice President of Marketing & Development at CSI. Jenny brings over 20 years of experience working at the nexus of the arts, media, justice, and equity to CSI. As a creative strategist and writer for progressive organizations, she specializes in communications, organizational development, fundraising, PR, and arts/activism. Read her full biography here.

I am truly excited to work with a group of people who have such a vast vision—to end racial inequity!—along with a plan, tools, and strategies to make it happen. It’s a thrilling time to be doing this work, as the demographics of our country shift so that we will be majority people of color.

What does racial equity mean to you? How do you see your role in getting us there?

There are so many ways to answer these questions. I think we will achieve racial equity when we can no longer point to race as an indicator of individual, community, or organizational success or failure. I see my role as multi-fold: I organize White people to move past individual self interest and towards collective group interest—that understands that as we work to improve society for communities of color, we improve society for everyone. At the same time, I believe in centering leadership of color in every aspect of the work, while not leaving the enormity of the work to people of color. Specifically in terms of the role of fundraising, I want to shift resources to people and organizations working toward racial equity, and part of that work is done by relationship building and shifting the structures of foundations and decentralizing fundraising skills so that they are in the hands of communities of color as much as with communities. In terms of the role of communications strategies and the arts in achieving racial equity: never underestimate the power of a good story to motivate people’s hearts and minds.

Describe your journey to CSIIn 2009, I was visiting my friend in Jackson, MS and went with her to pick up her son from pre-school, where I met Cassandra Welchlin, the mother of her son’s friend. We got to talking, and I found out that she worked for Center for Social Inclusion as the Director of Southern Programs, overseeing CSI Black land loss work, Mississippi education reform work, Gulf Coast leadership work, and overall policy and advocacy work for the South. I had been a racial justice activist for a long time, but I had never heard of Black land loss as an area of organizing, and I was completely captivated. It was one of those moments when I came face to face with my limited perspective as a white Northerner—but also one in which worlds of political, cultural, historical, and sociological connections opened up for me. Cassandra and I stayed in touch, and she invited me to an event at CSI in NYC, and from then on I followed CSI’s work with interest. When Glenn Harris moved East to take the helm, I was at a moment of transition between consulting jobs, and I came on board to help with a Development Director transition. Now I’m delighted to say I’m on staff, and here to stay.

If you could talk with anybody in history who worked toward racial justice, who would it be and why?

Langston Hughes. He had the ability to capture complex thoughts in very few, beautifully crafted words.

]]>
http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/csi-welcomes-jenny-levison-team/feed/0The Center for Social Inclusion at the Clean Power, Healthy Communities Conferencehttp://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/center-social-inclusion-clean-power-healthy-communities-conference/
http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/center-social-inclusion-clean-power-healthy-communities-conference/#commentsMon, 02 Mar 2015 21:52:10 +0000http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/?p=5347The Center for Social Inclusion will be at the Clean Power, Healthy Communities Conference on March 5th, 2015 in Oakland, California. The conference, hosted by the Local Clean Energy Alliance, is a gathering of clean energy advocates committed to bringing the benefits of renewable power to our communities.

]]>The Center for Social Inclusion will be at the Clean Power, Healthy Communities Conference on March 5th, 2015 in Oakland, California. The conference, hosted by the Local Clean Energy Alliance, is a gathering of clean energy advocates committed to bringing the benefits of renewable power to our communities.

The 5th annual conference will feature plenaries and breakout sessions on the role of energy democracy—community control and ownership of energy resources—in the transition to a renewable future.

The Center for Social Inclusion’s Anthony Giancatarino is moderating the Afternoon Keynote, Organizing to Democratize Energy,where the discussion will revolve around what it means to organize communities around energy democracy through local, state, national, and global perspectives.

]]>http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/center-social-inclusion-clean-power-healthy-communities-conference/feed/0Walking 21 Miles is a Case for Public Action, Not Just Adorationhttp://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/walking-21-miles-case-public-action-not-just-adoration/
http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/walking-21-miles-case-public-action-not-just-adoration/#commentsWed, 11 Feb 2015 15:15:29 +0000http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/?p=5326The story of Detroit’s James Roberston is a testament to hard work and tenacity, but it is also a strong indictment of a broken transportation system.

CSI’s Simran Noor on MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry to talk about James Robertson and the state of our crumbling transportation infrastructure

The story of Detroit’s James Robertson appalled all of us. Imagine walking 21 miles to work for over a decade. Almost anyone would have his spirit broken by this long commute, but James’ spirit was not broken. His persistence inspired a news story by the Detroit Free Press, which resulted in a successful fundraiser and a new car for James, donated by a local dealership.

James’ story is a testament to hard work and tenacity, but his story is also a strong indictment of a broken transportation system – a system created and sustained by policy decisions. Buried in James’ story is that Oakland County, one of the most affluent suburbs of Detroit, voted to opt out of the regional public transit system, making it impossible for many folks like James to get to work efficiently.

James is not alone. In fact, 1 in 10 low-income workers across the nation lack adequate public transit to get them to work. This is particularly distressing for communities of color: Blacks are six times more likely than Whites to rely on public transit to get around and Latinos are three times more likely. This is a pattern we can’t ignore.

Yet, transit-starved regions, particularly in low-income communities and communities of color, are struggling to maintain the bit of service they have and regions with sound transit systems are struggling to expand service for those most disconnected from transit. Groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), backed by the Koch family and others, are not helping. Grist recently documented their funding of local and state lobbyists to block referendums and ballot measures intended to support transit. They are particularly interested in dismantling support for transit funding since a bulk of their wealth is made from fossil fuels and is reliant on individuals driving automobiles.

The future of transportation doesn’t look good. The Department of Transportation has just released, Beyond Traffic, a forecast of the future that ties us to crumbling infrastructure and disarray due to climate change. This is our current landscape. But the future isn’t written yet.

Transportation is a part of our public commons, a public good, and must be treated as such. It’s not just about individuals taking a bus, or metro. It’s about all of us and our nation’s ability to thrive economically. This means investment.

First, we must understand that public transportation is essential infrastructure for our economy. It’s a vital connector that gets people to work, to school, to a doctor when their sick and to healthy food, etc. Public transportation is also an economic stimulator. For every $1 invested in public transportation, there is a $4 economic return. Every $1 billion invested in public transportation creates 36,000 jobs.

But investment in itself will not solve all of our problems. We need better planning. Local, regional, state and federal agencies need to look at transportation comprehensively, taking into consideration the community, cultural, civic, political, education, employment and medical institutions that are in neighborhoods. Transportation planning decisions need to connect to land use decisions and take into account health and environmental impacts, especially for those communities of color and low income communities, who more often than not, bear the brunt of our policy decision. This requires data, mapping and performance metrics to drive our decision making.

This also requires authentic engagement. Transportation investment, with all its benefits, can also be a gentrifying force in low-income communities. This means, from the onset, communities must be engaged in the decisions that impact their lives. Government must assess peoples’ needs and also take the time to educate and engage people so we can collectively envision fair and just plans that benefit everyone. This also requires funding communities to organize and self-educate in a way that works for them, leaders in Seattle and others, have relied on the trusted advocate model, for example.

The road ahead will be a long one and we should not be naïve in understanding the struggle before us. Public transportation has always central to our movement for civil and human rights. From Plessy v. Ferguson to more recent cases like Alexander v. Sandoval, we see just how contentious of an issue public transportation can be. However, we’ve also seen the successes investment in transportation can bring.

The bottom line is that public transportation is a key racial justice issue of our time. I am hopeful that working across community, policy, advocacy, and government, we can truly build the public transportation system that the next generation of Americans deserves.

]]>http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/walking-21-miles-case-public-action-not-just-adoration/feed/0After Selma: The Story of George Wallacehttp://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/selma-story-george-wallace/
http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/selma-story-george-wallace/#commentsMon, 02 Feb 2015 18:24:17 +0000http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/?p=5311Though portrayed a failure at the end of the movie Selma, Governor Wallace redefined American politics through his use of "dog whistle politics". Here's how he did it.

The film Selma is a complex portrait of the people behind the Voting Rights Act. The film’s end includes the tragic portrayal of Alabama Governor George Wallace, one of the principal antagonists in the film. If you haven’t seen the film, Wallace was the staunch segregationist who proclaimed “…segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.” In a bit of poetic justice, the film shows that Wallace attempted to win the Presidency four times and lost each one.

Though portrayed a defeated and powerless man, Wallace’s career wasn’t a failure. Wallace popularized dog whistle politics and helped redefine the center of American politics. His use of dog whistling during his quest for political power before and after Selma drove a political and electoral wedge between poor, working- and middle-class White folks and Black folks.

What do I mean by dog whistle politics?

Dog whistles, in the literal sense, are sonic devices that, when used, can only be heard by certain animals, like dogs. Dog whistle politics are appeals to the public that are not explicitly racist, but contain code words and symbols that evoke race in the minds of the general public, e.g. “welfare queen”. Elected officials and political candidates use these appeals to achieve a political goal, whether it is winning political office or moving a bill. In 2008, we at CSI documented and examined the ways in which race was used in subtle ways up to the 2008 elections in Stop Dog Whistle Racism.

A punch that jabs race into a conversation through coded or veiled references meant to signify a threat by non-Whites, e.g. “illegal aliens”;

A parry that dismisses charges of racial pandering, e.g. “I’m not being racist”;

And then a kick that says the critic is actually the one being racist, e.g. “reverse racist!”

Sound familiar? You can thank Wallace and his successors for these techniques.

How did Wallace popularize Dog Whistle Politics?

Prior to the Movement, Wallace was not vehemently racist. But, after running for Alabama Governor for the first time, he quickly learned that he couldn’t win unless he stirred up racial resentment. Wallace was elected in 1962 riding on a pro-segregation platform.

As the Civil Rights Movement changed hearts and minds, Governor Wallace understood that he could no longer be explicitly racist to win higher office. Through a process of trial and error, Wallace developed language that would speak to the racial anxieties of Whites, while seemingly on the surface appearing to be race neutral. Terms like states’ rights, limited federal government, and law and order became codes to oppose the gains of the Civil Rights Movement and to secure White votes.

Most persuasively, Wallace argued that the federal government had no authority to infringe on a Southern way of life – a repackaging of the same arguments Southerners used towards the end of slavery and during Reconstruction. Through blustery speeches, Wallace positioned Southern men as the “realest” Americans, connecting their struggles as a fight for freedom and liberty. This tactic shifted racial identities and political identities. Despite his losses in his Presidential runs, he garnered significant votes, including in the North, pulling both working- and middle-class White people together as collective victims of an overreaching government. Because of the effectiveness of his tactics, Wallace also succeeded in pulling his political opponents, like then candidate Richard Nixon in 1968, more towards dog whistle politics.

In an interview in 1981, Lee Atwater, advisor to former President Nixon summed up the power of dog whistle politics thusly:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N**, n**, n**.” By 1968 you can’t say “n**” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N**, n**.

Though Wallace never won the Presidency, his strategy lives on. During his time, he forced more moderate politicians to use dog whistle politics, which, because of its effectiveness, became a central political strategy to chip away at the public sector and consolidate power. He split the Democratic Party and opened up conservatism to poor, working- and middle-class White people.

Wallace’s influence

We can see Wallace’s influence well after his career. Though explicit racism has, for the most part, become less of an issue, dog whistle politics, aided by mainstream media, continue to stoke implicit biases against Black, Latino, Indigenous and Asian people in order to move political agendas.

When former President Reagan wanted to limit government spending, he conjured the image of a Cadillac-driving welfare queen. He did not have to say explicitly that he was referring to a Black woman because of years of dog whistle politics. Riding on the successful politics of dog whistling, former President Bill Clinton pushed to “end welfare as a way of life” and the ramp up the “War on Crime”, capitalizing on stereotypes that most Black people are dependent on welfare and are more prone to crime. Fast forward to 2012 when Newt Gingrich called President Obama the “Food Stamp President”, stoking irrational fears that Obama would give handouts to Black people. Today, when people emphasize law and order during massive protests for #BlackLivesMatter, they are implicitly stirring up images of violent Black people which discredits Black communities’ demands for justice in the face of consistent police brutality.

This tactic is effective. Equipped with dog whistle politics, we’ve seen conservatism chip away at the social safety set and other pillars of the middle class as the nation experiences the largest racial wealth gap in decades. This hurts all Americans including White people, but especially people who are Latino, Black, Asian or Indigenous. Moreover, dog whistle politics concentrates wealth in the hands of the very few by driving a wedge among constituencies who could organize together for policies that support poor, working- and middle-class individuals and families across race.

Moving forward

The story about race post-Selma is a story about political power and the desire to wield it. To be clear, dog whistle politics isn’t about capital “R” racists; it also isn’t about using the words themselves; it’s about people using race as a wedge to achieve a political outcome.

To get to healthy and vibrant communities for all of us we need to know how we got here and work to move hearts and minds to support policies that push us towards equal opportunity, fairness and justice. This requires community organizing and support for strategic communications. Naming race and is essential to combat the flood of dog whistle messages that make it harder for us to do our work.

Where we live matters. Where we live shapes the opportunities we have – whether we have access to reliable, affordable transportation, to good hospitals, to good schools, and to good jobs. Where we live even determines what type of air we breathe. Lastly, where we live is shaped by policy. Because of racially discriminatory housing policies and practices – past and present, explicit and implicit – communities of color, particularly Black communities, are more likely to live in neighborhoods with high poverty and low opportunity and thus, are less likely to accumulate wealth. As a nation, we absolutely must address the cumulative impact of racial housing discrimination.

A little bit of history: MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry provided a great breakdown of the origins of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. In sum, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 was the final policy implemented as a result of the Civil Rights Movement. Before the Act, America suffered through years of overt housing discrimination through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which redlined neighborhoods, green lit restrictive covenants, and downgraded the credit ratings of Black and interracial neighborhoods. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 highlighted the right to fair housing but much like voting rights, was not enforced by the government. Fast forward to 1967 when the Kerner Commission identified persistent housing segregation as a cause of race riots in Detroit, Newark, and Los Angeles. As a result, the 1968 Fair Housing Act was implemented to enforce fair housing rights by prohibiting housing policies and practices that discriminate against one’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability, and to promote integration. Since its passing, the Fair Housing Act has been a major tool for community organizers and advocates to combat this type of discrimination and build opportunity for communities of color who had been historically excluded from good housing.

Now the question before the Supreme Court is whether the Fair Housing Act should be considered only for explicit housing discrimination. Currently, the Fair Housing Act is used to stop explicit housing discrimination, but it is also used for “disparate impact.” Disparate impact is claimed when a policy or practice is race-neutral or not discriminatory in its intention, but produces discriminatory outcomes on a group based on race, religion, sex, familial status and disability. Ultimately, disparate impact is used for examining the effects of a policy or practice, rather than its intent. If the court rules against using the Fair Housing Act for disparate impact policies, the consequences will be severe. Here’s why:

On one hand, people of color oftentimes don’t have access to credit. For instance, potential homeowners need a credit score of 580 to receive a standard loan from the FHA. If one does not meet the minimum credit score, to receive an FHA loan you must put down a larger down payment. However, people of color on average have lower credit scores than Whites. And, because credit agencies account for mortgage but not rental payments, White homeowners are automatically at an advantage for higher credit scores. Additionally, because people of color disproportionately have a lower income and net worth than their White counterparts, putting down a larger down payment is not a feasible option.

If the Supreme Court rules that the Fair Housing Act cannot be used for disparate impact, the consequences will be dire, particularly for communities of color. It’s not solely about bigoted individuals denying people the ability to buy a home; it is about communities, particularly communities of color, having limited opportunities due to policy and practice. If our housing is segregated, our education system will continue to be segregated, and provide limited opportunities for children of color. Children of color will continue to be subjected to higher asthma rates. The outcomes of these practices in housing affect everything from good jobs to good healthcare to educational opportunity and more. This will ripple across generations.

With housing at the core of our opportunity, we cannot ignore the decision the Supreme Court will make that will impact our collective future.